AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Protik Prakash Banerjee, J
The exception served upon the petitioner appears to be identical with the copy, which was served on Mr. Chatterjee. As such, the affidavit in reply shall be taken on file and kept on record.
While commencing the submission on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Dhar has taken me through the following documents:
i) Page 58 of the affidavit in opposition filed by the respondent no.13 being Annexure F thereto which is an online application disclosed by the respondent no. 13 herself;
ii) Page 20 of the counter affidavit of the petitioner to the exception taken by the respondent no.13 to the report; and
iii) Page 45 of the writ petition which shows the qualifications required by an applicant;
From page 45 of the said qualifications it is clear that a person will require either of the following sets of qualifications:-
i) A Masters degree with at least 50% marks in any subject of Humanities, Arts, Science, Social Sciences, Commerce, Music and Fine Arts AND M.Ed. with 55% marks from a recognised University/Institute in both the cases AND Ph.D in Education
ii) Masters Degree in Education (not necessarily M.Ed.) with at least 55% marks from a recognised University AND B.Ed. with at least 55% marks AND (c) Ph.D in Education.
It was specifically mentioned in the advertisement as follows at page 46 of the writ petition.
Mr. Dhar submits that on the face of the report and Annexure F to the affidavit in opposition it is clear that the respondent no.13 did not have the complete set of qualifications either in respect of clause (I) or clause (II) above. He submits that the petitioner admittedly had only an M.A. and a M.Sc. and a B.Ed. degree which was with less than 55% marks and a Ph.D. Therefore, she could not have been eligible to apply under either of the eligibility criteria classes, as above. Had it not been for the deliberate misrepresentation facts made by her in the online application her application should have been thrown out at the threshold. That it was not done on such occasion was because of the unholy nexus between the members of the Commission and the respondent no.13 - with at least that is his submission.
Mr. Dhar further submits that the teaching experience of the candidate as at page 49 of the writ petition has not been fulfilled by the respondent no.13 and he has taken me through the teaching experience mentioned at page 59 of the affidavit in opposition and showed me how the first of the same comes from a junior college teaching up to Class XII level and not a college within the meaning of law; he also points out that the petitioner succeeded in NET only in 2000 and so could not have been appointed as a teaching in any college before that.
He says that thereafter the first full-time appointment has been alleged to be from October 20, 2005 and by no stretch of imagination could this be a beginning for computation of a period of ten years as on the date of the application.
That apart, he points out that the teaching experience in the department of Education Vinaya Bhabana, Biswabharati, Shantinekatan between October 23, 2009 and May 16, 2019 has been clearly certified to be that of a guest lecturer from the document at page 47 of the affidavit in opposition.
Mr. Dhar relies upon a judgment reported in Rajesh Awasthi vs. Nand Lal Jaiswal & ors. reported in (2013) 1 SCC 581 at para 31 and 33. Paragraph 33 especially is extracted hereinbelow:
It Centre for PIL v. Union of India a three-Judge Bench, after referring to the decision in R.K. Jain vs. Union of India, has opined thus: (Centre for PIL case, SCC p.29 para 64)
"64. Even in R.K. Jain case, this Court observed vide para 73 that judicial review is concerned with whether the incumbent possessed qualifications for the appointment and the manner in which the appointment came to be made or whether the procedure adopted was fair, just and reasonable. We reiterate that the Government is not accountable to the courts in respect of the lawfulness/legality of its decisions when impugned under the judicial review jurisdiction."
(emphasis in original)
It is also worth noting that in the said case a view has been expressed that the judicial determination can be confined to the integrity of the decision-making process in terms of the statutory provisions."
Mr. Dhar shall continue his submissions on whether a writ in the nature of quo warranto can be issued in the facts and circumstances of the case made out by him on the next date fixed. The matter shall continue as heard-in-part.
Post the matter on August 6, 2019 at 10.30 am.